Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[skelm]

Any updates - lots of us with non-working equipment

[pzy]

Why bother... they're just going to lock and delete this rather than give us any information 

[D-Link Multimedia]

Or perhaps when a thread isn't recreated with the exact same thing in a thread below it, it will survive.

There is no final date on the firmware and when it is done it will be released.

[Texxustim]

This is incredible!!! D-Link is choosing to blow off customers who have been waiting patiently with a smartass comment like the one just left by the "engineer/moderator"?!?!?! I run a tech support team responsible for billions in annual sales and I can assure you not one of my guys/gals would even think of making a dumbass comment like "there's simply not going to be any more posts on this subject...LOCK...the code will be done when it's done"...WTF?

I too have been through the endless maze of TERRIBLE phone support and have received advise from 3 upper tier support specialists that all contradict each other. I have been patient because honestly, I have a lot of D-Link gear and up until now it has been rock solid...that's a weakness I guess, I buy something, I like it, I buy more from same company, repeat. I don't think I'm alone here...

Let me make a couple common sense requests that might keep a lot of hardware from being sent back:

1) Add a comment in a prominent place within the DNS-343 Support Area that states the device is currently limited to the use of 1TB and smaller drives.

2) Grow a pair and give some broad details regarding these great new "features" you are in the process of developing. You don't need to be so specific that you ruin the surprise but anything is better than "the code will be done when it's done...Lock"...

3) Instead of sharing common sense BS like, duh, we need to test this stuff before we send it out, explain, again, in general detail, the severity of the issues you are currently encountering and give an estimate on when they will be resolved. Again, no hard date, just an approximation with a smile and a plea to "hang in there, we care".

4) Finally, remember above all else that those of us on this forum are your customers. We all have the option of returning your box which is clearly NOT labeled correctly. We are choosing to keep them instead and wait so that we can remain D-Link customers. Don't reward that loyalty by talking down to us like we are all a bunch of idiots.

Tim

[JaLooNz]

Why not consider releasing a minor version that only adds support for the 1.5TB HDD? (The small fix should not take that long to release given the support should already be in a beta firmware and they only need to backport some code)

[D-Link Multimedia]

This is incredible!!! D-Link is choosing to blow off customers who have been waiting patiently with a smartass comment like the one just left by the "engineer/moderator"?!?!?! I run a tech support team responsible for billions in annual sales and I can assure you not one of my guys/gals would even think of making a dumbass comment like "there's simply not going to be any more posts on this subject...LOCK...the code will be done when it's done"...WTF?

I too have been through the endless maze of TERRIBLE phone support and have received advise from 3 upper tier support specialists that all contradict each other. I have been patient because honestly, I have a lot of D-Link gear and up until now it has been rock solid...that's a weakness I guess, I buy something, I like it, I buy more from same company, repeat. I don't think I'm alone here...

Let me make a couple common sense requests that might keep a lot of hardware from being sent back:

1) Add a comment in a prominent place within the DNS-343 Support Area that states the device is currently limited to the use of 1TB and smaller drives.

2) Grow a pair and give some broad details regarding these great new "features" you are in the process of developing. You don't need to be so specific that you ruin the surprise but anything is better than "the code will be done when it's done...Lock"...

3) Instead of sharing common sense BS like, duh, we need to test this stuff before we send it out, explain, again, in general detail, the severity of the issues you are currently encountering and give an estimate on when they will be resolved. Again, no hard date, just an approximation with a smile and a plea to "hang in there, we care".

4) Finally, remember above all else that those of us on this forum are your customers. We all have the option of returning your box which is clearly NOT labeled correctly. We are choosing to keep them instead and wait so that we can remain D-Link customers. Don't reward that loyalty by talking down to us like we are all a bunch of idiots.

Tim

I do not think we have blown off anyone on this forum. Had I deleted the entire thread I could understand but it was answered to the best of our abilities at the time and locked so that anyone else looking for this issue could find the current answer. If we don't we would get endless amounts of posts asking the same thing until the firmware released.

Also please quote me entirely so users can draw their own conclusion, "This is the last post on here regarding this issue, it will be fixed next firmware when it is available and until then there is no other reason to post in this thread." Although it may be blunt it is the answer.

I did not state that is that I said this will be the last post(meaning the last post I make in this thread) and that it was being locked because at that point and in that post I made, I gave the answer and there was no reason to post anything else. We do hear your complaints but we can not release any faster than we currently are. We are not a large software development team with all the resources we can get our hands on.

1. 1.5 TB drives are supported in Standard configuration. It is a Raid issue. It is too late in the game to add something like that on the website considering how close the firmware release is.

2. There was a lot more going on in that thread than 'lock done'. It was going no where other than people asking the exact same question which had already been answered multiple times. Releasing upcoming feature lists is not common practice so I don't see that happening any time soon.

3. This simply isn't going to happen. Software developers do not discuss internal issues/bugs/information with end users. There is no way to give a date, we have given approximations and that is what lead up to all these discussions. We give an approx date and don't meet it then we have unhappy forum members. We are dealing with users DATA and we will not make the mistake of undertesting. The firmware is still in Lab testing and pending it passes all tests then we would be more than happy to release it but until then there is no choice but to wait.

4. We understand you are our customers and glad that you made it to our forums. We value your feedback. I do not feel that I have talked down to anyone but if you feel that I have I apologize and it was unintended. I am simply giving you the answer that I know. I wish I could give you an exact date but it is just as much a waiting game for me as it is for you. My box at home is waiting too but I wont risk my data by putting a beta on it unless I know for sure its solid.

Why not consider releasing a minor version that only adds support for the 1.5TB HDD? (The small fix should not take that long to release given the support should already be in a beta firmware and they only need to backport some code)

I believe we answered this in a nother thread but basically we can't do it at this time. Perhaps timing will work out better on 2TB drives or whatever comes next but when 1.5 TB drives came out we were already implementing new feature sets into the DNS-343 and pushing to get it into the lab for testing. In order to do that now we would have to remove all features we have added over the past few months and implement the fix and retest the firmware for a couple more weeks which would actually take Longer than where we currently are in development.

Hopefully this clears some things up.

[Texxustim]

D-Link Support,

Ok, I get your preamble and will just let it lie under your broad explanation of being "blunt". We get it, new code is coming, you don't know when or what new things it will do, done. Nuff said.

Allow me to make just a couple comments regarding your separate answers:


1) Ok, it might be "too close" to release for a broad statement like "1.5TB drives are not supported in a RAID" but how about simply stating somewhere in the faqs something like "while 1.5TB drives are not currently supported in RAID configurations, firmware enhancements are in development that will soon add this functionality". If this is still too much please for the love of all that is holy make your phone support people aware of this limitation (ie. ref my original comment, 3 people gave me 3 different answers...1 said 1.5TB drives were supported in a RAID, 1 said they weren't and 1 said if you pressed reset, formatted as standard and then re-formatted all drives as RAID 5 it would work).

2) Understand and apologize. Looking at it now I didn't mean to come across so short. You sell a relatively inexpensive box that most of us go out and populate with much more expensive drives that are useless until we get this update, I didn't mean to belittle you in any way, just frustrated and didn't mean to take it out on you personally.

3) We all understand and appreciate the engineering AND testing you must do to ensure our data is safe...hence our universal requirement for RAID protection.

4) See 3)

New idea/potential workaround. I had a little while to play with my setup this weekend and did the following which seems to have yielded a useable RAID 5 + JBOD configuration.

a) Format all drives as standard, ext3.
b) Note all 4 drives have a capacity of 1.4xx TB
c) Reformat all drives using custom, right side option (ie. RAID 5 Ext 3 + JBOD)
d) Select 4000GB as the size for the RAID5 config and go

The above yields a 3,934,797 MB RAID5 (MS sees this as 3.57TB useable) and a 654,206 MB (609GB useable) JBOD that appears to be functional.

Note: attempting the above using 4095GB (ie. 4096-1) gave me negative numbers of garbage which is a little strange as I would think the FS limitation would be binary based but again, exactly 4000GB seems to have worked.

Does the above make sense to you? I don't know that I would trust this in a production mode but for those of us who would like to start using our new toys this might suffice until the code is released (given of course that you do NOT trust it with non-backed up data). I realize this may not be worth much for most but for me I'm considering using it as a temporary backup since I'm flying blind on some hardware right now and would like to utilize this for something while I'm waiting. When 1.03 is released I will simply re-format and re-backup on the new, larger, guarateed secure RAID5.

Appreciate your comments and continued support.

Tim

[skelm]

Tried the steps in Texxustim's post and got the below - no idea if it has ANY real fault tolerance - nice work though in at least getting the 1.5s to work

Total Drive(s):     4
Volume Name:      Volume_1
Volume Type:     RAID 5
Sync Time Remaining:     Completed
Total Hard Drive Capacity:     3934831 MB
Used Space:     33 MB
Unused Space:     3934797 MB
Volume Name:      Volume_2
Volume Type:     JBOD
Total Hard Drive Capacity:     654206 MB
Used Space:     33 MB
Unused Space:     654172 MB

[fordem]

To be honest - I'm not certain what the point of your post is, or for that matter how it relates to this thread.

What exactly did you try?

If you really want to know if there is any fault tolerance, there's one easy way to find out - put some data on Volume_1 and then remove a drive - if the data remains accessible, you have fault tolerance - any data on Volume_2 will be lost, if not immediately, after the first reboot.

Be prepared to completely re-initalize the array at the end of the exercise or to forfeit the 650 GB of space you have in Volume_2 - if you replace the removed drive and allow it to rebuild the array, it will only rebuild Volume_1 - the RAID array - you will lose the JBOD.

Oh - the numbers you present suggest you might be using 1.5TB drives - but since you neglect to provide that little detail, we are left to guess and that sort of makes the post shall we say - meaningless?

[Texxustim]

Fordem,

With all due respect how can you miss the fact that we are using 1.5TB drives? This was the second of two posts to this thread that all relate to the anticipation of the arrival of code rev. 1.03 that will support 1.5TB drives. As stated in step b) of my experiment, and in my original posting, yes, I am using 4 1.5TB drives.

This was simply an experiment to determine if my current hardware can be used in it's current state (1.02) while we wait for the release of 1.03. I certainly understand how to test it's robustness (kicked off a 1.5TB copy this am and will test when complete) and that JBOB, by it's very nature, provides ZERO data protection and noted such in my disclaimer that warned against using this in a production environment.

Finally, as also stated in my post, this would be a temporary stop-gap measure at best. Yes it's temporary, less than ideal, creates an unprotected JBOD, would require a future rebuild, etc. but if you know that going in it might be able to serve some purpose other than a door stop until 1.03 is released.

Tim

[fordem]

Tim

You claim to be in tech support, I don't know if you use a forum such as this, or if you're field support - but either way there are parallels.

How many times have you seen - either - someone in a forum post saying 'same problem' - or - call your helpdesk saying 'same problem' and the circumstances were completely different.

A fundamental rule in the business of tech support is NOT to assume anything - and in this case, it seems that you have assumed that I was responding to your post - I was not, I was responding to skelm - and since there was critical information missing I questioned it - his original post did not specify what steps he followed or that he was using 1.5s - that is information that was added later.

I'm going to conclude, based on the time stamps that you read my post (made at 2:02 pm) after he edited his post - the one to which I responded (edited at 4:15 pm) and so it is not immediately clear that I am addressing a specific point on fault tolerance.

Even so - take another look at my post - do I appear to be addressing any issues you may have raised - who questioned the fault tolerance - was it you or him?

As one tech support professional to another - I'm sure you know what we say about assumptions - they are the mother of all ...

[Texxustim]

Fordem,

All I was doing was trying to answer your original question, regardless of who posted it and at what time. I know you are a "guru" and I am a "newbie" on this particular site but again, just trying to be efficient and cover all open options...that's something I'm sure you are aware of in the support business...why skip an easy answer when you have one?

We're all the same team here bud, relax.

Tim

[fordem]

Tim - that was a question that was not directed to you - and therein lies the problem with fora - it is not always clear who a question is meant for - or even which post you're responding to.

To be honest, were I in your position - reading the threads after the edit - I would have been wondering "What is this guy smoking?  Isn't it obvious we're talking about 1.5TB drives?"

Oh - the trouble with easy answers is that they some times assume that your audience has a certain level of knowledge - which I have found can be a really bad thing to do, especially when dealing with RAID in a consumer environment - hence my signature

[pzy]

Am I correct in assuming we won't see the DNS-343 firmware until the new DNS-323 firmware is posted?

[hilaireg]

Not far off the mark ... several posts by D-Link Engineering in the forums seem to indicate that the DNS-323 f/w is first in the "Release Queue".

HTH,